Chickens laws Michigan

[Aunt Theodora]

PA 750 starts out with definitions
Among them is:
(g) "Livestock" means that term as defined in section 3 of the animal industry act, 1988 PA 466, MCL 287.703.

PA 466 MCL 287.7036 includes "poultry" in its definition of "livestock" in section tt and includes chickens in its list of birds in its definition of "poultry" in section iii.

PA 750-50a covers service animals
PA 750-50b covers companion animals
PA 750-50c covers Police dogs and horses

These are all of the 750-50 sections

The section on companion animals includes, "This section does not prohibit ... customary husbandry or farming practice involving livestock"

I don't think those keeping chickens in a coop outside need to worry. Assuming the governor doesn't decide these laws aren't among those she doesn't like.

The section on service animals doesn't have that exception. Maybe people claiming that do need to worry about this? And/or it is pretty hard to argue that house chickens besides chicks and some short term issues are customary practices.

I couldn't read the Lansing Journal article without signing up for the Journal. So I don't know if her house chickens were the issue or what exactly the issue was.

Has anyone else had a problem?

Oh. You said others had a problems. Sorry for not reading it again.

What in the world do flowers in the front yard have to do with the treatment of animals?

This is a long story. It was release in print in LSJ on front page plus another full page. I am a farmer. I was a farmer's wife, but he passed away. I lived on farms and had my first flock at age 14. My chickens were White Rocks and for eggs and good and to make money. These chickens were exhibition breeds.

Yes, throughout the state. Not just chickens. The AG ruled fog laws cannot be used for chickens so they use anti-cruelty laws. In some cases they do have warrants and in others they don't. Sometimes code compliance comes with ACO to find any code violations. Most people cannot afford a lawyer. Few lawyers want or are qualified to handle chicken or animal cases except dog bites. Some animals are on farms and others in residential zones.
The law has parts that are unconstitutional but legislatures don't want to bother changing them. Worse violation is sodomy.
In too many states where animals are seized, some animals die. In this case the lady had 6 chickens die two allegedly natural and 4 by predators. They were cared for by volunteers and were free ranged. The surviving chickens had combs with frost bite and scars from fighting.
The lady had attended council meets the County Animal Control to have her rooster as a emotional medical support with letters.
Now he is dead.
The law is written in such a way that an tomato bush with wire things was a danger to chickens because it could fall on chickens and thus an unsafe environment. Tomato plant with sturdy tomato supports.
The article is copyrighted.
The nothing in front yard except grass is harassment. The guy is a felon. I will send link to his story later
I am having problems with my hip.

Well. Rereading it, again, looking for what might apply to keeping chickens instead of whether any of it would (except the obvious freezer camp),.... I don't what they could have used.

Well. Rereading it, again, looking for what might apply to keeping chickens instead of whether any of it would (except the obvious freezer camp),.... I don't what they could have used.

Many decades ago I had an encounter with a young police officer, what it was about, I don't recall. He told me "Well, mam, that's the law plain and simple." Momentarily I was dumbfounded by this statement. I was certified to teach high school social studies. I then looked up at him and stated, "Officer, there is nothing about the law the is plain or simply."
This law references to other laws. There are Oxford commas. It evens prohibited humans having unnatural sex relations with other adult humans. They know that is unconstitutional but refuse to change it but a bill in Michigan Legislature is soon going to be passed which sets forfeiture to 14 days. A professor Favre (author and lawyer for animal rights) raised questions such as what is "adequate veterinary care?". This bill is a poster child of a law written with good intentions but do just the opposite. In this case by allegedly keeping chickens safe, 6 died in their care. Others have mites and a staff infection.
It is what it is and there are many animal owners that have had animals seized without pre deprivation hearing or notice which is a constitutional right of due process. Chickens were healthy. They had water and food. The ACO committed perjury. Accusations were hypothetical. This was cruel and unusual punishment to innocent chickens and their owner.
Backyard chicken owners better watch their backs.

 

[saysfaa]

Deleting because trying to make amends any way I can think of for being stupid and insensitive. Hoping it does not cause more damage.

 

[saysfaa]

This is a long story. ...

Delete.

 

[saysfaa]

...
He told me "Well, mam, that's the law plain and simple." Momentarily I was dumbfounded by this statement. I was certified to teach high school social studies. I then looked up at him and stated, "Officer, there is nothing about the law the is plain or simply."

Too true.

...law written with good intentions but do just the opposite.

Also too true.

 

[saysfaa]

Last time I tried to find the bill you are talking about, I got this far
This dead end

I tried again. And found This

Which led to this. I think the bold is proposed changes?

Is this right?

The 14 days isn't bold, though.

The bold includes defining animal abuse as defined in 287-331 section 1

Ok. That is Here
It refers to...

Seriously? Back to starting point?
So. (Let me stay away from numbers)... X says the definition is in Y; Y says the definition is in X

And X, at least, is what specifically excludes chickens.

I'll try again later. I really do need to get some other things done today.

As for unconstitutional laws. And constitutional laws that are summarily dismissed by elected officials, appointed officials, and courts. And possibly other variations of such. I don't think the rules of this forum allow going there except in the private chats. Sorry for butchering the grammar in an attempt at emphasis and expression.

 

[Aunt Theodora]

I read the whole thing - his post from 2013.

He knew zoning for his metro Detroit lot specifically did not allow any chickens. He looked for a loophole to get a few chickens anyway and found the Papesh case who did nearly the same thing. "Nearly" because it isn't clear whether they looked for a loophole before they got the chickens or after they were caught. And because their local zoning allowed chickens, just not on lots as small as theirs. And because they got their first chickens before the surrounding field was developed.

They both argued that they were "commercial" because they sold a few eggs. Since the act didn't define commercial and the definitions from the places they used didn't specify the size of the operation. Other places, also credible, do specify minimum sizes of the operation to qualify as farming- distinctly bigger than either of these. Places such as the income tax codes, PA 116, property tax classifications. Some use acres, some dollar amounts of sales, some other things, some combinations.

The Right to Farm Act was created in 1981 to protect farmers from the complaints of people from the city who moved to the country and then attempted to make it more urban with anti-farming ordinances.

I remember when the Right to Farm Act was passed. There was a LOT of discussion in the farming communities (neighborhoods, trade magazines, meetings of Ag organizations, and such). It was meant to protect farming. Not to protect everyone with a corn stalk in flower pot on their balcony (even if they sell one of the ears to their friend) or who wants six pigs on their quarter acre lot (as long as they sell a pork chop). There is really no difference between either of these examples and what these people tried to do.

If more people are running into trouble it may be because the rules changed after his case. In May 2014, it no longer applied to chickens in backyards if there was a house closer than 250'. Which really did a lot to defeat the original purpose of the act - the textbook example was to protect a farm from harassment for smelling and sounding like a farm when the field across the street sold to a developer.

I don't know if the rules changed again or what they are now.

That was the intent of the right to farm. But sadly, I my humble opinion, it mainly protects CAFOs not small traditional farms. Especially if some one covets your land.
I believe that the punishment should fit the crime and owning chickens should not be criminal. Chicken hatcheries sort out their chicks by sex and roosters are tossed into containers by thousands every day. Then put in a conveyor belt to a machine that grinds them up for fertilizer. I have a piggery 2 miles away. The pigs never see grass, or the sun, feel the rain and I never eat bacon. Pigs are intelligent animals. A feed lot for beef had cows knee deep in mud and manure, but a farmer with cattle only a few inches deep has cattle seized. Again in my humble opinion the right to farm was a law to protect farmers but it really doesn't.
I know ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for breaking the law. But the law is not plain nor simple and laws change. Like the Pole Town decision. And Dred Scott. Most are arbitrary. Many lack due process. In my humble opinion many codes exceed the police powers of a municipalities.
In a nutshell. The law is not plain or simple. Forfeiture laws are my pet peeve. The Institute of Justice have many such cases it has won.
For instance when a house goes into Forfeiture, then the land is sold and the money goes to pay the back taxes and the rest which is equity should go to the previous owner. But it isn't and there is a lawsuit pending in several Michigan counties addressing this practice.
Dead battery. Until next time

 

[Aunt Theodora]

Last time I tried to find the bill you are talking about, I got this far
This dead end

I tried again. And found This

Which led to this. I think the bold is proposed changes?

Is this right?

The 14 days isn't bold, though.

The bold includes defining animal abuse as defined in 287-331 section 1

Ok. That is Here
It refers to...

Seriously? Back to starting point?
So. (Let me stay away from numbers)... X says the definition is in Y; Y says the definition is in X

And X, at least, is what specifically excludes chickens.

I'll try again later. I really do need to get some other things done today.

As for unconstitutional laws. And constitutional laws that are summarily dismissed by elected officials, appointed officials, and courts. And possibly other variations of such. I don't think the rules of this forum allow going there except in the private chats. Sorry for butchering the grammar in an attempt at emphasis and expression.

Thank you for the updated version. Like you I will print and read later.
I actually read where I believe it was a senator did not want to try to remove sodomy because it would cause arguments and he wanted to get this dog law passed. That was last updated law. If you come across any senate public or representaive hearings about this bill, give me heads up. Nothing about the law is plain and simple. I did write a letter against passing this to my legislature. After I read and analyze it I will send another letter.

 

[Aunt Theodora]

Heidi Williams, director of ICAC mentioned 14 days at a meeting.
And thanks.

 

[RaZ]

This is a long story. It was release in print in LSJ on front page plus another full page.

Originally it was an ordinance violation but prosecutor amended it to a criminal charge which is a felony.

I don't know what the "LSG" is that you are referring to.
The original ordinance violation was NEVER "amended" by the prosecutor. It was NEVER a felony. A misdemeanor is a minor offense against local law or ordinance handled by a local district court. Not all misdemeanors are considered "felonies" unless bound over to the circuit court.

Also, I have have to wonder about how someone, years after the fact, would know what "he knew zoning for his metro Detroit lot specifically did not allow any chickens. He looked for a loophole to get a few chickens anyway and found the Papesh case who did nearly the same thing."

You are both posting from a position that implies that you have pertinent information regarding this case. You don't!

How do I know this? It's because this was MY case. I am the chicken criminal in question. I lived through this debacle nearly 10 years ago. The episode is moot. I'm going to ask the BYC administrators to take down this thread. It serves no purpose.

 

[saysfaa]

Two different cases.
The LSJ (Lansing State Journal) is about the woman from Ingham county.

The other is about a man in Wayne County. Oh. I am sorry.